Not that I personally have anything against gay unions, but:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him “less Christian.””I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” ((Hear audio from WTAP-TV)) St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.
Right. Because of the part in the Sermon where he talks about how blessed the abortionists are, for protecting the least of these.
When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a “person” a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.
Nice of him to declare McCain a natural born American, though.
UPDATE: Ah, what’s the big deal, anyway?
“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage…”
Isn’t that the very same impenetrable sticking point which will prevent The Big O from ever making the mount which he then hopes to ride home astride with the victim-valued Prog empth vote by his side – actually instead the nearly perfect prophylaxis of the missionary’s position against all other comers? Or is Barack Hussein Obama just too mysterious for us without the correct neurotic hopeyness?
Obama is so different than George W Bush, who said:
The difference, of course, is that George W Bush didn’t use the bible to justify his support.
Glad to see Barack is using that good ole ‘obsure’ straw man. Hell, if it was an overt part of Romans, he’d be in deep kimchi (never mind that the Sermon on the Mount informs Paul’s understanding of Godliness). Indeed, the godlessness of Romans 1 has nothing to do with Jesus condemnation of godlessness in his Sermon on the Mount. No, Barack, Jesus did not use godlessness in the SOTM as an able foil to true godliness.
We’re just half a step away from Obama justifying S&M with Jesus’s whipping of the money changers in the temple.
wat is “induced-labor abortion”?
Paul to the Romans? c’mon, no one reads that.
Philemon is “obscure.” Romans is serious business.
But “Sermon on the Mount” sounds incredibly gay.
So whatever.
He’s babbling.
A reasonable position, and he’s fortunate we all have to pretend he’s black, or he’d be in deep shit for it. Without the word, rednecks, church ladies, and actual black people don’t oppose it. The point of “gay marriage” is to use the boot of the state to grind those people’s faces in ass. He’ll get The Memo shortly.
Well … I didn’t know there were “obscure” passages in the Bible. I suspect the good Reverend Wright would disagree with that sentiment so perhaps Barack is establishing his “independance.”
Perhaps Barack is not familiar with Jesus mentioning God’s judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah.”
Matthew 10: 14-15
What was it they were doing in those two cities? Oh, silly me! That must be another one of them there “obscure” biblical passages.
Ir is almost inevitable that when politicians seek to find Biblical proofs for progressive ideals they end up stepping on their toes.
“Gay unions” and “induced-labor” made me think this post would be about, you know, Teamsters or something.
Happy, shiney, hopeful Teamsters.
That’s pretty much the way I see it too. The more militant ones think somehow that people can be forced to accept them completely. The best they should ever hope for is tolerance, and I think they already have that in most cases. They will never have it in all cases, but then again, there is always a subset of people out there who will have somee kind of a problem with you, no matter who you are.
The fact that Bush put forth a reasonable take on the issue is ignored.
Holy smokes, he is just like Jesus giving the Sermon-on-the-Mount. Though I must admit, Jesus talked about all that damnation and stuff, so he must not have gotten the talking points on Hopeful Hopeyness. But I am impressed with He-Whose-Middle-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Thought’s exegesis of scripture. I even know the bible verse he was quoting there:
And now abideth gay rights, muddle-headed pacifism and abortion; these three; but the greatest of these is abortion.
– 1 Obama, 13:13
I think that’s from the Unitarian version of the bible. Or possibly the Book of PFAWs.
I’d write more but even just thinking about General Hopenchange makes me realize it’s time for my four o’clock swoon.
Al: You are just killing me, but in a very changetudinous kind of way. I’m thinking the Bible translation of Dan Brown is what’s being used. I expect Michelle to introduce hopey goddess worship any day now.
“induced-labor abortion” doesnt actually exist does it?
aww..u guyz just pullin my chain again.
;)
look….i can unequivocably promise u that we will soon be able to prove homosexuality is NOT a lifestyles choice, but biologically based behavior.
will that change any of your positions on samesex marriage?
Good Allah, this shite is getting tiresome. His position is almost indiscernible from President Bush’s, yet he has the audacity to hope that he will not get called on it. At the same time, he wants to portray R’s that hold practically the exact same fucking position as some kind of knuckle dragging mouth breathing bigots. On top of everything else, the loonwaffles have lived in fear of the pending theocracy when their own annointed one is speaking from the mount, overtly. Allah, help us all, this is going to be a long fucking year.
I think that’s from the Unitarian version of the bible.
You mean Stuff Jesus told Jefferson?
LOL. BMoe! That’s the version with Moses decending with “The Ten Strong Suggestions.”
Um, no, you can’t. Even if you think you can, it won’t hold for everyone.
#14: No, nishi, it’s just that hearing the Great
WhiteColored Hope of the Democratic Party quoting George Bush on “gay marriage” and asserting Teh Theocracy, to the wild cheers of the audience, has us a little confused. We’ll be back to normal shortly.Regards,
Ric
Homosexuality is both, nishi. There’s no genetic predisposition to wear leather pants after the age of 35 or to alternate brunch between The Abbey and Mirabelle or to have Smallville viewing parties. These are choices.
oh.
i think i see BJTex.
will it be just like the fertilized eggsoul thing?
Oh, nishi, I beg you. Let’s not go revisit the horse that has already been beaten into a gelatinous puddle. Please!
oh no feets.
there is a biological basis for all behavior.
E.O. Wilson in his book on theoretical population genetics and sociobiology says we can predict skirt lengths and clothing fads.
nishi: Why should the government be able to dictate religious values? By what right should they be able to force a church to perform a legal service that goes against that churches doctrines?
One suggestion that seemed to reach a consensus agreement the last big discussion we had on this, was for all the legal business for everyone be performed by the government and called a Civil Union, and for the social/religious Marriage aspect of it to be completely separate and performed as a separate ceremony by whomever agreed to it. Would you accept that arrangement as fair?
nah ric locke.
O accutually believes in states rights.
GW’s sop to states rights is just a sneaky way of striking down roe v wade mixed with realism about the futility of amending the constitution on marriage.
THIS is how u theocons really feel about states rights.Congressional Republicans anticipated Greer’s adverse ruling well before it was delivered and worked on a daily basis to find an alternative means of overturning the legal process by utilizing the authority of the United States Congress.
Camo manpris were foreseeable? Yeesh.
nishi, here is a classic example of why you don’t understand the difference between fact and supposition.
You present “biological basis for all behavior” as a fact. You back up that statement with this:
Do you not see your own disconnect from the scientific concepts you claim to worship?
sure B Moes.
is that gonna happen?
It already is in many states, nishi.
O accutually believes in states rights.
Because nishi says he does!!
I predict Obama will soon have an amazing card section at his rallies.
???
theoretical population genetics is a just a term for the mathematics of genetics in large populations.
they say theoretical becuz ur using mathematics to approximate.
I don’t have a problem with the civil unions, nishi. I imagine that there’s a function of value to the hive that gays perform that prevents them from breeding out of the population. I like and admire many of them–particularly the ones for whom their sexuality is just a facet of their identity. I think that Christ would have treated them the way that he did other social outcasts, such as tax collectors.
It’s the idea that Obama’s views on abortion don’t make him less Christian that I have trouble with.
Damn, just when we’re about to get out from under the JesusBoot of Booosh!!!1! ALONG COMES A THEO-LIB, MAKING UP IMAGINARY JESUS QUOTES IN ORDER TO IMPOSE HIS MORALITY ON US!!!!
SMASH TEH LIBERARCHY, MAN!
Also, do you believe that Obama would be so open to states’ rights arguments if one decided to outlaw abortion?
Obama loves Jesus, Dan.
well that is a good bipartisan agreement between GW and O on teh gays.
right?
so i dont care i guess about motivation as long as it better for teh gay.
its nice they have the same platform.
Right.
Which, when applying mathematics to human behavior, still constitutes a theory until it can be definitively proven by repeated observable and quantifiable human behavior that confirms the calculation!
Geez, I’m not anything close to a scientist and I know that. Are you trying to deceive us here?
hmm……i dont know i guess.
i dont think ull be able to strike down roe tho.
so its moot.
Okay, hf. But how does Jesus feel about Obama? I mean, apart from the fact that he’s a black American, and therefore downtrodden?
Then what’s the point in pretending about all this “freedom” and “liberty” stuff? All behavior’s biologically determined; we have no free will.
Biological determinism is about as anti-American as it can get.
And BHO doesn’t even believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to self defense — how can he possibly believe in states’ rights?
Dan: They are connected in their browniness. This is the Doctrine of Sacred Melanin.
It’s not a question of striking down the Roe, nishi. It’s a matter of 1) parental notification, 2) refusal of government provided abortion, 3) recognition of the psychological effects of abortion and the options presented in state-mandated sex-ed courses, 4) egalitarian treatment of biological fathers.
A card section like this, but maybe Obama holding an ESCR funding bill or something.
I think Jesus feels a little competitive, Dan.
yup, all described as theories cuz we are still learning.
Quantum Field Theory, Approximation Theory, Anthropic Theory, String Theory, Theory of Evolution, Intelligent Design Theory.
BUT……some theories have WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more scientific basis than others.
they are not equal.
it is just terminology.
everything is a theory until it becomes a Law.
Pfooey. When Barack is assassinated and comes back to life, I’ll think about it, hf.
Nishi, there’s also something called rhetoric, and rhetoric says:
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.
Blasphemer.
ahh
All men are created equal UNDER THE LAW.
Doesnt mean they are equal under the genes.
cant legislate genotypes or phenotypes.
my beef with the theocons is that they want to legislate memotypes.
wow……a lennon quote!
does that mean dan is a surrender monkey underneath?
Okay. But then why in God’s name do you have small breasts, nishi?
Calling marriage by another name and pretending it’s not marriage is either deliberately deceptive or just stupid. There’s no compromise in civil unions, it’s just changing the name and claiming victory.
and dan…..u cant have egalitarian treatment of biological fathers until men can get pregnant.
goes back to not bein equal under the (jeans) genes, hehe.
But then why in God’s name do you have small breasts, nishi?
cruel fate i guess.
/wistful sigh
By the way, what, exactly, is a born human baby if it’s not a person? A lump of meat?
Chopped liver.
‘Biological determinism ‘
Yesum Ms Sanger sure was determined to reduce the negro with her biology project and Obama helped.
I predict Obama will soon have an amazing card section at his rallies
OBAMAMANIA!
Human behavior soley biological? Shit. There goes economics.
“……………………all men are created equal. they are enodowed by their creator………………etc.”
So our rights derive from………………………………….?
Quit making shit up.
By the way, what, exactly, is a born human baby if it’s not a person? A lump of meat?
From what I could gather with a quick Google search, induced-labor abortions are mostly used with anencephalic babies and such. Those with such severe handicaps or maldevelopment that even if they survive birth they seldom live more than a few days. It does seem reasonable to me to question whether something without a brain could be considered a person.
Speaking of theocons, BarryO sure seems to conspicuously hang with some uber-religious types himself and, gasp, attends church. Oddly, this seems not to be too much of a problem with the same crowd who hates W because he’s a middle of the road Methodist. Hmm. That is a puzzler, huh?
Conservation of tissue. Small breasts; gigantic brain. Hasn’t nishi told you some three-digit number of times that she’s wicked smart?
Probably feels compelled to, because absolutely none of the power of that mammoth brain makes it into her phonetext (which sounds oddly like “phonetics”, but isn’t). Combine argument by assertion with appeal to self-authority, and you can make 95% of all of nishi’s arguments for her.
ohnoes. too many brainses
…but not all small-breasted, large-brained women communicate in the garbled, half-assed way nishi does. Both my college girlfriend and my wife are proportioned that way, and they’re both highly skilled communicators.
[…] the whole thing. He later talks on how abortion doesn’t violate the Christian faith either. As Dan Collins says: Right. Because of the part in the Sermon where he talks about how blessed the abortionists are, for […]
I doubt many here would object to civil unions, and even if they did I imagine I would respect their reasons for doing do. Just like I respect the people who are against gay marriage.
Even given the choice of a civil union which would take care of all the legal aspects of forming a same-sex partnership, many gays reject the notion. Why? A lot of them (not all, of course, nor perhaps even the majority, but a vocal subset) want to use the idea of gay marriage as a bludgeon to get the straights in line. They think that forcing the issue will force final acceptance of their lifestyle (we all have a lifestyle, I know I do, but I just expect to be tolerated and left alone, not loved, for the one I choose). The opposite will be true, of course, if gay marriage is railroaded in without correct political process, since a lot of Americans do not take kindly to having other’s values thrust upon them.
As I said before, all they should expect is tolerance for the time being, and if they want the legal rights afforded to married couples, accept the civil union as the best we can do at this time. It probably isn’t “fair” but then again, nothing ever is fair. Some people have a tougher row to hoe than others. In time, more people will probably move to acceptance, but there will always be holdouts.
I always defer to Federalism when I can, and I think this is a good case for Federalism. Let the states, legally and with due process of government and accordance with the will of the people, decided individually what they will do on the subject. I don’t want to see the courts do it, I want to see the system as intended work this out.
You cannot only do one thing. Marriage has been between one man and one woman for a long time in Western civilization (which so far has been the most successful model that has been tried), and it seems to work relatively well. We cannot foresee the side effects of tinkering with a system that works for the vast majority of the population, and doing so for the sake of a tiny minority does not seem wise.
Finally, I fully believe that for many gay men (I have never discussed it with gay women so I don’t know what they think) there is a biological imperative to be gay, just like there is an imperative for most of us to be straight. I don’t know if that’s the case for all of them; I imagine some borderline cases choose to be gay, just like some other borderline cases choose to be straight (assuming as I do that the biological imperative is a continuum rather than an either/or proposition). The fact that they are “born that way” does not take away from the fact that we should be careful tinkering with a working (damaged, yes, but still sort of okay for some) system just to satisfy the desires of a few.
Free association is a right. There is no right to have your associations recognized by the state.
And not enough assholes.
slart u have a college gf AND a wife?
well…i dont really unnerstand teh gay thing i guess. if samesex couples can get their personal church to marry them, wtf?
certainly they shud be able to get justice of the peace weddinns.
isnt that a civil union?
is it the name “marriage”?
i swear it iits just like Che!
i dont get it.
And you know this how, exactly?
sometimes i feel like im from another planet.
a parallel world, but where ppl are like…rational, hehe.
Not planet, nishi. Dimension. The one where you can think things into being. This one ain’t it.
This nishi person is tiresome. Barry Fucking O is proving to be every bit of the theocrat that the leftlibs all fear, in their own fevered minds. That, or he is just lying to them. Either way, he is a fraud of a candidate.
It does seem reasonable to me to question whether something without a brain could be considered a person.
So what is it? An amoeba? A skunk? A trash can?
What I was taught by the Benedictines: It may not, by any reasonable definition be actually a human being. Once a human egg is fertilized, however, if allowed to develop it will never develop into a table, a turnip or a toucan. It will be a human being. That inevitable potentaility is what is to be protected. It may not be, at some specific moment in time, a human being in fact, but it is a human becoming. The stage of development maters little, the moment at which the transition from becoming to being takes place is also immaterial. It is the inevitability that is the determining factor, that point which must be weighed in any rational decision concering intervening in that development.
Never once, in all of recorded science, has a fertilized human egg developed into a “table, turnip, or toucan”. Well said, RTO.
No, nishi, you’re just like the rest of us. Man (gen. incl. fem) is the rationalizing animal. Actions come first, then reasons.
As for a biological basis for homosexuality — I reckon you could find a biological basis for pederasty, too. I urge you to find and read God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater by Kurt Vonnegut, paying particular attention to the passage in which the doctor explains the word pervert to Senator Rosewater. The book is from Vonnegut’s pre-senile dementia days, so it’s quite old, but it does show that the man could think, once upon a time.
There is a long list of things that are “natural” that we discountenance and try to discourage. It is natural for some women to die in childbirth. It is natural for adults to die off once past prime breeding age. It is natural for men to seek as many sex partners as they are able to service. It is natural for women to try to bind a male to service, and to cheat on him once bound. Some of those things are “natural” only in the sense that a therapy for them hasn’t been found yet; others are “natural” results of evolutionary forces that we resist. Some of them we ignore, some of them we seek physical remedies for (primarily medicine, which is what you’re up to), and some of them we “treat” through by societal remedies, encouraging or proscribing behaviors according to what (we perceive) makes the society successful. If natural == good, then biology == destiny, and we don’t live that way. If we did, you wouldn’t have a job.
Many of the societal remedies for “natural” conditions we disapprove of were codified as religious beliefs. Simply declaring those particular ones unnatural, and yourself privileged to modify them at whim, does not answer. Our society has a prohibition against infanticide, which is not “natural” in any way — virtually every other species makes a point of killing off surplus infants when times are bad, and the majority of ours has historically agreed with that. Our society, considered in general as “Western”, is also an order of magnitude more successful than any other by just about any benchmark you might cite. We don’t know which of the myriad proscriptions and prescriptions caused that to be the case (and shrieking that you do know, and the ones that disfavor your particular pursuits shall and must be done away with, won’t go); the essence of “conservative” with a small “c” is “if you don’t know what it does, don’t screw with it.”
So no, showing me a biological basis for homosexuality won’t change my attitude (about which you have some rather peculiar notions, anyway; your mind-reading machine clearly needs maintenance). There’s also a biological basis for typhoid, septicaemia, and diarrhoea.
Regards,
Ric
When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a “person†a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive
He opposed it, when he was not able to duck this vote too.
After a New York judge ruled against gay marriage, Howard Dean proclaimed that people who did not support gay marriage were bigots. Do you suppose he’s going to come out and call the Big O a bigot now out of consistency?
The Dems need to keep giving Howard the microphone. They need him. We need him!
So what is it?
What is a first trimester miscarry? It is human, but most don’t consider it a human being. I prefer the idea of a human becoming, and I understand the concept of continuance. The question is, what if it is too deformed to reach being? I am just saying I would really need to know the particulars of the bill in question before I would question the vote. There are cases where I feel it is debatable.
The question is, what if it is too deformed to reach being?
Then something has intervened in the development and the number of ethical options open to the rational decision maker increase.
But “Sermon on the Mount†sounds incredibly gay.
You maybe thinking of Semen on the Mount psycho.
It was in limited release.
ric that is dishonest sophism to compare to consensual sex between adults to pederasty.
and u know it.
i asked a question.
is it just the name “marriage”?
is that wat offends u?
or is it that u wud really like to legislate just ur own brand of moral-judeo-xianity.
if the samesexers are over the age the age of consent, u have no say.
land of the free, home of the brave an all that.
I liked what JD was saying the other day about viability. In addition to not becoming a “table, turnip, or toucan”, if left to almost any sort of natural consequence, it will live to instance as a human born. After that, without significant, one might say focused attention, the consequence is no viability at all.
I don’t know if Ric was using eqeq (==) above as ‘is such that it is equal to’ as in an equivalence test, or as an assignment operator.
nishizonoshinji==nihilonoteensititsi
Never once, in all of recorded science, has a fertilized human egg developed into a “table, turnip, or toucanâ€Â.
We’ve witnessed one that developed into a telephone pole.
I liked what JD was saying the other day about viability.
In the cases I was referencing, there would be no viability. Ever. The babies were born with no brain at all, and most of their skull missing. The brain stem, if present, could sustain bodily functions for a bit, but no more than a day or two.
well….the fertilized egg is a parasite, not a symbiote.
1/3 of ALL pregnancies terminate in a spontaneous abortion in the first trimester.
those wud be the nonviable parasites, carrying insupportable genetic flaws uncovered by the developmental process.
i cud accept no abortion after 6 months, because the fetus is viable at that point, and also….has sufficient brain tissue development to support sentience, thot and REM sleep cycles.
if the fetus is not alive when delivered, it is termed a teratoma.
there is a broad distribution ranging from a mass of randomly differentiated cells to a nearly perfectly formed phenotype.
i had a class in those.
grisly.
B aMoeba :) – I’d say the exception defines the rule. Perhaps with a little more mercury in the vaccines (or whatever), more Getrudes will grow up to have encephalitic or related births, generally, the proferred viability discussion here is about the other 99.9% or so of the other zygotes, were they to be left alone.
Oh, I thought we were discussing the original post. ;p
well……some of u say all those fertilized eggs are potential homo sapiens sapiens…i tell u at least 1/3 of them are not.
at least.
riclocke
There’s also a biological basis for typhoid, septicaemia, and diarrhoea.
yes! and we scientists want to exterminate those!
even kill Death and disease like aubrey de grey.
wait…..are u saying……….u want to exterminate homosexuals?
rawr, or mebbe just “fix” them.
euwww, ric, i never suspected u were a eugenisist!
hitler.
;)
MC – That is precisely why the whole viability argument is simply a non-starter with me. Even after birth, that living breathing clunmp of cells that nishi would deny life to could not survive for 2 days on its own. Tying the idea of viability to its ability to live from that point forward is laughable. The funny part about this entire debate is that I am generally more a middle of the roader about these kinds of issues, but in the face of nishi’s incessant blathering and “scientific” preening, I find myself drifting further afield.
nishi – you really are a twatwaffle.
And I took a class on twatwaffles, so I know. You cannot refute my learning. Scientific, it is. You are a twatwaffle.
Unless you have a crystal ball, you can’t know which ones they are until after the fact.
yah, well……is that god’s plan?
that a third are nonviable even with the stellar lifesupport system of the womb?
nishi – what say you about shinyhappychangeyboy going all evangelical on you?
So you know better than God now? You really are a twatwaffle.
The babies were born with no brain at all…
And that, boys and girls, is where superdelegates come from.
Doesn’t matter if it’s God’s plan or a crap shoot. If you can’t predict which ones terminate on their own, you can’t substitute an individual’s decision with out running a risk of preventing a human being.
Unless there’s no value to preserving human beings or no value to life.
JD: Yep. I was humbly attempting to second your remarks. And the in-utero based viability is more concrete than ex-utero.
Nishi – a quick search evinces:
The most common complication of pregnancy is spontaneous abortion, which occurs in an estimated 10-15% of pregnancies. Spontaneous abortion is categorized as threatened, inevitable, incomplete, complete, or missed. Spontaneous abortion can be further classified as sporadic or recurrent. Inevitable abortion is defined as bleeding of intrauterine origin with continuous and progressive dilation of the cervix but without expulsion of conception products before the 20th week of gestation.
10-15% is a far cry from 1/3 doncha think?
But, assuming that we accept this at face value, I haven’t vetted it and don’t know if it’s actually factual, but if we assume that it is, it means that 85-90% of zygotes will be born human beings if left alone (at which point they become non-viable as JD points out).
You say: well….the fertilized egg is a parasite, not a symbiote – what does that make the placenta then? A tumor?
Incidernally, your 33% figure isn’t borne out by any source I can find with nearly every one I’ve checked indicating that to be closer to 15% and only one source indicating as high as 20%.
MC – No humility needed. I am a foul mouthed uneducated racist sexist homophobic rube that mongers war, hawks chickens, oppresses me some brown people (when I am not marrying them), and am otherwise a foul, difficult, intractable asshole. Not nearly as bad as IJS though.
RTO is stating the areligious anti abortion argument: human life has value, this will be, even if it is not now, human life, therefore it has value, more than “a choice.” It doesn’t matter how much you want to be free of having a baby, that’s a human life, and you now have a responsibility toward it, particulary as you’re the parent of this particular life.
We can argue about the priority of lives in emergencies, we can argue what to do with babies who will be born effectively dead, but what we cannot do is argue that choice supercedes life.
Incidentally: how do these brainless babies survive in the womb to develop and be born alive as this bill describes? How does their heart beat, how do they continue to live?
Anencephalic babies possess just enough barin stem to support the bare autonomic functions.
I tend to gravitate to areligious arguments as I can’t, I’ve found, expect others to share my religious values no matter how loudly I may express them. It’s been a long stange trip sometimes finding those areligious arguments to support those scruples I hold that are derived, initially, from a religious subscription.
barin = brain apparently.
<whack!>
Bad commenter!
I’m not convinced homosexual behavior is biological. If you put two straight men on a deserted island, and they came from a culture that had no taboo regarding homosexuality, eventually they would probably fall into homosexual activities.
Put a faithful Christian and a homosexual on that island, and it’s extremely doubtful any homosexual activity would take place.
It’s been my observation that there’s a lot more girl on girl action going on these days now that it’s the vogue thing. Is that because of biology?
It’s been my observation that there’s a lot more girl on girl action going on these days now that it’s the vogue thing. Is that because of biology?
That has nothing to do with biology. It is just a really really really really really cool trend.
Lee, would you, uh, happen to know the GPS coordinates of the island? The one with the girl-on-girl stuff, not the other.
No McGehee, but I could probably direct you to a few websites…
That I heard about from a friend…
That has nothing to do with biology. It is just a really really really really really cool trend.
Like this?
[a tad NSFW]
That floor looks cold.
if the fetus is not alive when delivered, it is termed a teratoma
Wrong: it is termed a “stillborn”. A teratoma does not involve the combination of gametes, unless perhaps this combination produces something unrecognizeable as anything other than an amorphous combination of tissues, which is nevertheless never “born”.
Nor is a stillborn fetus a “monster”.
i cud accept no abortion after 6 months, because the fetus is viable at that point
Wrong: a fetus is “viable” upon delivery if it then lives, which certainly has occurred at 5 months gestation. I even “delivered” one myself. I first thought it was a “stillborn”. Then he lived and came back to visit me.
Wrong: a fetus a not a “parasite”. There is no parasite which becomes its own host or requires the host’s own genes to become itself.
I don’t know what the upside down word salad claims it is, but it is certainly not a knowledgeable M.D..
nishi – Here was a neato story on the Obamessiah:
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print
It sounds like he had a tough press conference today as well, getting a little snippy with members of the media over Rezko and Canadagate.
oh noes……ima mathematician.
my dad said 1/3….hes the doc.
perhaps….he was tryin to make my SIL feel better after her miscarriage….but does that matter? 20% are defective and wont make it anyways. my point is…potential personhood isnt a sure thing at all.
certainly some 4-5 month fetuses can be viable, usually with heroic measures and impaired quality of life. my parents finacial advisors twin grandaughters were micropremies and are blind.
/shrug
i just really think it is the womans choice, and it is between her and herself, or her god, or the babydaddy.
and a fertilized egg is not a “human life”.
feets, that was kinda boring….i lost interest after a bit.
it seemed like that guy was gonna some do huge exposee on O, and then we just got masses of his superboring life details.
snore city.
Oh. I wish I still had that copy. Mostly I just remember the part about the chocolate. And freedom. And also cabbages were involved.
Allahdammit, MayBee !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I had to, JD, but please know it was done with affection.
can nishi get to negative credibility?
Damn those abercrombie & fitch metrosexual I am so comfortable with my sexuality that I am going to go jam my tongue down some dudes throat all to hell.
can nishi get to negative credibility?
nishi flew right on past that one a loooooooooong time ago.
I wonder how alphie is doing?
Incidentally: how do these brainless babies survive in the womb to develop and be born alive as this bill describes? How does their heart beat, how do they continue to live?
Christopher Taylor, #112
My daughter’s baby boy was diagnosed in utero as hydranencephalic; he had virtually no brain. She asked the doctor the same question. These babies do have brain stems and a spinal cord, so they have brain stem activity, such as breathing, movement, and other automous activity. Many of these babies are aborted; some, allowed to go to term, live a few hours, some months or, with loving care, even years. Our little grandson died in utero at about 6 monts gestation. At the hospital, I held his sweet little lifeless body in my hand. My daughter and our family were prepared to love and care for this little fella, perhaps the least able among us. Although his condition was tragic, aborting him would have been worse, and was never considered an acceptable option to his parents.
I’m not convinced homosexual behavior is biological. If you put two straight men on a deserted island, and they came from a culture that had no taboo regarding homosexuality, eventually they would probably fall into homosexual activities.
Homosexual behavior, or activities may not be. But any port in a storm isn’t really being homosexual, that is just not having any fucking standards. Literally. A homosexual is someone who is sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex under any situations, which is a totally different thing, and by best reckoning a biological phenomenon.
or the babydaddy.
gawd, how I hate that term.
Darleen – That was just a throwaway line. nishi would not be the type to actually allow daddy to have any type of say in these matters.
Small point of order
but the Born Alive Bills didn’t just deal with induced abortions for hydrocephalic babies, but any baby born alive during an abortion procedure.
Saline abortions have the “unfortunate side effect” that sometimes a baby is born alive. In one of the most shameful moments in Congressional history, in 1996 some of these “botched abortion survivors” went before Congress to give testimony and some female congresscritters (female, not women) walked out declaring these fellow human beings “stunts”.
I wonder if nishi realizes that D&X was invented to help prevent survivors.
In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living “homo sapiens” wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a “‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual.'”
On all three bills, Obama voted “present,” effectively the same as a “no.” Defining “a pre-viable fetus” that survived an abortion as a “person” or “child,” he argued, “would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
In 2002, Obama voted “no” on the bill.
NOW can we use his middle name?
BMoe,
A homosexual is someone who is sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex under any situations
I still say homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon in a significant percentage of the gay community. If someone has low fucking standards and and engages in the lifestyle, attraction and romantic tendencies will likely follow.
lee and BMoe – You guys can argue about it being biology, low standards, boredom, etc … in the end, if you are taking it in the end, you might be a gleenwald.
Or at least know gleenwald…
Oh, Is That What They Mean By “Living Bible”?
Barack Obama reveals that the Bible can be a “living document” just like the Constitution. Next up, he’ll take a look at the rules of golf and the Denny’s breakfast menu.
Obscure is not necessarily a bad thing to say about a verse. It simply means
“shrouded or not clearly seen or easily distinguished”
In other words, unclear.
…and there are certainly more than a few verses that could be considered obscure by many Christians.
Read for yourself below whether or not Romans 1:27 is obscure.
I wonder how many people consider this one to be obscure or unclear as well:
1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Is that obscure or unclear? Now judge for yourself on the Romans passage:
Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
I cannot leave here without letting folks know the rest of the story. Many Christians fell into the list described by 1 Corinthians 6:10.
Many people are still living in that list.
But praise God! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STAY ON THAT LIST!!
Read the very next verse…
1Corinthians 6:11 And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Believe that God sent Jesus, His son to take your punishment for rebelling against Him. Believe that Jesus died and rose again by God’s power. Call Jesus to be your Lord and Savior (lord=master). Stop rebelling and turn to Him and receive eternal life.
Stop believing the lie that you cannot change. Nothing is impossible with God. All things are possible to him who believes.
Here’s another “obscure” passage from Romans:
Rom 10:9-13 if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
Rom 10:13 For “WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.”
The name of the Lord is Jesus. Confess=say. Say Jesus, you are MY Lord. Say Jesus save me. He will be rich to you. Jesus died for you. Now you live for Him.
Where the hell did you get that idea?
From here probably:
teratoma.. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary.
Main Entry: ter·a·to·ma
Pronunciation: “ter-&-‘tO-m&
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural ter·a·to·mas or ter·a·to·ma·ta /-m&t-&/
a tumor derived from more than one embryonic layer and made up of a heterogeneous mixture of tissues (as epithelium, bone, cartilage, or muscle)
Nishi tries hard to be twisted…
potential personhood isnt a sure thing at all.
Yeah it is. That’s why it’s called potential. Get it yet?
certainly some 4-5 month fetuses can be viable
If any 4-5 month fetuses are viable, all must be presumed to be. Btw, a zygote is viable as grown further in culture, then implanted into any appropriate uterus. Someday perhaps most fetuses will even be transplantable or at least supportable by artificial placentas, thus viable.
“Viability” has nothing to do with it.
usually with heroic measures and impaired quality of life
Heroic measures are used everyday on every kind of human, and mostly without any regard at all for any pre or post “quality of life”, at least here in the U.S..
The kid I referred to above was deaf – that’s all.
The word-salad uses terms like “teratoma” and “parasite” as an expression of its sub-rational, bigoted, threatened, hating “mind”. Why would anyone expect such a mind to support life, human potential, and individual free thought? And what would even “hope” be for a mental capacity so inherently depraved?
[…] has bemonkied himself. Must be something about the shitegeist. Posted by Dan Collins @ 6:32 am | Trackback Share […]
If someone has low fucking standards and and engages in the lifestyle, attraction and romantic tendencies will likely follow.
Possibly, but I still new kids who grew up in the same household, same environment, and one turned out gay and the others didn’t. And how do you account for someone who long before any sexual exposure, back in elementary school, felt sexually attracted to other boys and nothing toward girls? All I can go on is my own experience, I have never been particularly religious, and for most of my life, very hedonistic. If it sounded like fun, I was game to try it at least once. Quite honestly, if it was simply a matter of personal choice I would have probably tried it, but I was never in the least bit attracted to other men. It is purely my opinion, but I think it is biological.
#137- That is what I was curious about. I would have serious issues with an all inclusive type of bill like that. Thanks, D.
Whack down angry conservatives time.
“I’m not convinced homosexual behavior is biological. If you put two straight men on a deserted island, and they came from a culture that had no taboo regarding homosexuality, eventually they would probably fall into homosexual activities.”
I think what intelligent people have been saying all along is that THE PREFERENCE is biological and immutable. Yes, everybody knows that prison rape can happen between straight men who go back to what they PREFER when they are released. Everyone knows gay men find beards and have children. Big deal.
“Put a faithful Christian and a homosexual on that island, and it’s extremely doubtful any homosexual activity would take place.”
A faithful Christian like Ted Haggard? Larry Craig? Gary Aldridge?
It’s been my observation that there’s a lot more girl on girl action going on these days now that it’s the vogue thing. Is that because of biology?
Again, just as Ted play-acted in his heterosexual marriage and produced kids, these women can play-act to make money. Is this really so complicated to figure out? Women don’t even have to get anything up!
As for comparing allow civil unions to other “natural” thing that are not good like adultery. Whatever. Adultery requires deceit. What is the deceit in allowing people to live according to their sexual preference if 2 consenting adults are involved? BTW I’m actually one of the “conservative” gays. I don’t think it should be called marriage.
Screeds from ancient texts written by men?! A reading from the third book for FSM: “Yea – I say unto you, brunettes who have been bleaching your hair to go blond. Believeth in Fly Spaghetti Monster – and you shall wake up a natural blond one day!” LOL. Whatever. If your make believe makes you happy, so be it. I’m not saying you should be denied a job, kicked out of housing, or be beaten or killed because of what makes you happy.
umm..i must apolo for the drunk posting last night.
i wasnt very clear. the point i was attempting to make about teratomas is that u lot seem to think that those nonsentient cell clumps are are somehow different than the “potential persons” u get so rabid about.
on the sentience scale a tertoma and a fertilized egg are just the same.
the class i had was embryology where we looked at sagittal sections of embryos for 6 hours a day 3 days a week.
growing a person from two scraps of protoplasm is an extremely complicated process, fraught with potentional errors.
so my bad if i was unclear.
The kid I referred to above was deaf – that’s all.
exactly my point.
but this is wat i really think….if those 400,000 snowflake embryos are “human life” or “potential persons”..
wft are u lifewarriors DOING leaving all that life to rot in a cryogenic prison???????
hypocrites.
i have finally figured it out.
science just terrifies most conservatives and all theocons.
fMRIs and CAT/PET scans of brains of homosexual man and women show both functional and morphological differences from heterosexual male and female brains.
it will be proven.
fMRIs and CAT/PET scans of brains of homosexual man and women show both functional and morphological differences from heterosexual male and female brains.
it will be proven.
And demagogued into the ground. By both sides.
science just terrifies most conservatives and all theocons.
Whereas Al Gore uses “science” to swindle people like you, nishi. Any data that doesn’t fit your paradigm is imperceptible to you.
I’ve figured it out! Grammar terrifies most liberals and junk-sciocons.
There are all kinds of predispositions believed to be biological in nature, and yet those sufficiently motivated overcome those predispositions. It’s said alcoholism correlates to biology about as well as does homosexuality, yet alcoholics can and do overcome the predisposition.
They make a choice. And because we as a society are intolerant and hateful of alcoholics, we glorify that choice and demonize those who give in to the predisposition.
When, oh when will we learn to tolerate and embrace our soused fellow humans, and love them as they are?
ah yes McGehee….but alcoholism is BAD for homosapienssapiens.
marriage, OTOH is GOOD for homosapienssapiens….so is consensual sex.
are u isomorphic with ric locke?
homosexuality is BAD? is that wat ur sayin?
Did somebody hear a noise? Sounded like a dial tone.
alcoholism is also BAD for society.
drunken drivers, healthcare costs, neglected children, etc.
marriage is GOOD for society, right?
cmon mcgheehee
speak truth, an quit the weasel wording.
u all actually think homosexuality is TEH SATAN!
Lee @138:I still say homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon in a significant percentage of the gay community. If someone has low fucking standards and and engages in the lifestyle, attraction and romantic tendencies will likely follow.Heh. Low fucking standards. Right on. Unless there is a gene that predisposes sexual attraction based on fascination with feculence.
And, genetic biological attractivness: who knew?
Now, that second island is where?
Most Fundamentalists are completely unaware of the historical context of the bible. They are just told what to believe, mostly by people who prey on them and have no theological training. Every theologian agrees on the importance of reading and understanding the Bible in its historical and cultural context. When considered in this way, the life of Jesus and everyone in the old testament is unimaginable in modern times, though the teaching of Jesus are beneficial when understood in our time in history. I am a convinced Christian and I don’t agree (call me conservative) with all of the fundamentalists that promote murder, polygamy, torture, incest, and idol worship. If you want to be a Fundamentalist and disregard the historicity of the Bible, then you agree with all that is in it and thus know that many sanctioned people of God in the Old Testament had several wives, had sex with their children, and killed their relatives (the poor kids that did not obey their parents). Oh wait, you probably don’t agree with that. It is convenient to use the historical argument for that, but not for the issue of homosexuality. Please worship God and follow Jesus out of love and devotion, rather than what is convenient for you.
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com
One of those occurs only in the past tense, obviously.
nishi
do you know why D&X was invented?
darleen i dont know wat that is.
why dont u and maybee implant a few of the snowflake embryos?
bein as how they are “potential life” an all.
It really is irrelevant whether or not homosexuality is chosen or innate. How two adults want to conduct their private life is none of my business unless it affects me materially. If two men or two women, want to pool their resources and build a life together, that actually benefits the society as a whole. However, “marriage” is a public institution that society (at present) deems as specific beyond the couple itself in its rights and obligations.
I have no problem with civil unions … it offers up a block of law open to any couple – romantic or not – that have entered into a partnership dealing with property and medical rights. If two spinster sisters want to protect their assets, or two loving men, then they should have that legal option. But it’s not marriage.
darleen i dont know wat that is.
I call bs. D&X is partial birth abortion. Try telling me you’ve never heard of that.
And those “snowflakes” belong to the people that produced them. Only they can allow them to be adopted.
Or are you anti-parent as well?
why dont u and maybee implant a few of the snowflake embryos?
How did I get drawn into this? You need to narrow your brush a little bit.
I’m pro-choice. I can respect the opinions of those who aren’t though.
see? i can be nasty.
why cant a justice of the peace marry samesex couples then?
isnt that a civil union?
why cant samesex couples just their own church marry them?
do u theocons own the word marriage or sumpin?
nishi
point of reality … I’ve already produced 4 daughters and have two grandsons. I’m beyond the breeder part of my life.
And those “snowflakes†belong to the people that produced them.
so fertilized eggs.
why cant samesex couples just their own church marry them?
SS couples and even many straight couples have commitment ceremonies without being civilly married.
don’t get out much, do you, nishi?
embryos = nascent human life
imho “d&x” is rarely performed and is a scary club the theocons use to beat up support with.
lets be honest….u all want to legislate ur religious morality to impose ur core beliefs, ie homosexuality is sinful, abortion is sinful, etc. on the rest of us.
darleen quit the weasel wording.
by not allowing samesex marriage you are proclaimin the “unnatural sin” of homosexuality.
by not allowing samesex marriage you are proclaimin the “unnatural sin†of homosexuality.
Is that what Obama is saying, too?
AND that is the very reason that samesex couples want to be married.
they want to belong, to members of the tribe.
and u condemn them.
??
im not talkin about O.
ric locke compared homosexuality to disease.
mcgheehee compared it to alcoholism.
i want u to be honest about ur goals and quit tryin to dress those goals in faux rationality.
i get called a bigot here, but u are the bigots.
theocons.
they want to belong, to members of the tribe.
and u condemn them.
I agree that that is sad, nishi. The question is: do you want the government to try to force the tribe to accept that which they do not? In a society in which the government derives its power from the tribe, how is that even possible?
??
im not talkin about O.
I am, and he’s the subject of this post. Is he personally against gay marriage for some reason other than that it’s a sin?
the government forced the acceptance of blacks, didnt it?
im not talkin about O.
That is the topic of the fucking thread, nishi, try to get your head out of your navel long enough to understand the actual discussion if you keep insisting on participating. Why are you attacking Ric and McGehee and ignoring Obama who in essence agrees with them?
nishi, you are tripping over yourself again.
Not allowing a civil union between same sex people to be called marraige is not a de facto proclaimation of legal “unnatural sin.” You mistake the legal with moral beliefs. We simply want to not redefine the traditional definition of marraige to suit a politically correct agenda. Marraige between a man and a woman is different from a civil ceremony between same sex couples. Why should I be forced to redefine a word that expresses a particular definition for centuries simply to make gay people feel better about themselves?
Embrace the diversity and accept the differences as long as there are legal protections for both. Also stop assuming that every discussion reflects some kind of a “theocon” “unreason” approach to an issue that’s actually quite simple and can be framed in non-religious common sense memes.
BTW: I have a sister in law who is a lesbian, lives with her life partner and has no interest in “marraige” in the traditional or redifined sense. She prefers to celebrate their commitment as something unique from “breeders.” I love her as a human being even if I might disapprove of the lifestyle.
Of course, I am an Evcangelical Christian so I’m liable to smite your forehead in an attempt to heal you of you ignorance. ;-)
Maybee @46: I’m so going to get working on that. My next ‘later’ project.
Ric @82:
Codified in religious tomes. I’ve so looked for the best way to express the origin of those biblical tomes as our species’ ‘guides for better living’; your ease and clarity in doing so evokes a ‘hats off’ response from me.
Oh, and Nishi @152 “science just terrifies most conservatives and all theocons” Absolutely wrong. Science can justify religious and conservative beliefs; I have no problems reconciling the two whatsoever. Whatever we discover, remember, that’s new and exciting to us, probably was forgotten already by our betters. Denying that you have betters is elixar to many scientists (and mathematicians…)
On the genetical basis for human homosexual behavior…look for a latent trigger, based on our ‘agar plate‘ population density.
the government forced the acceptance of blacks, didnt it?
The majority of the people used the government to force the acceptance of blacks. It was the ultimate non-states’ rights, which you have been praising elsewhere in this thread.
duh.
O said wat i allus say, he’s against gay marriage for himself, PERSONALLY.
“against gay marriage? dont have one.”
let the states decide.
then teh gay can just cross statelines to get married.
same with abortion.
let the states decide.
prochoice and prosamesex marriage states will get the economic benefit, culture will evolve, and it will become desireable to have samesex marriage and abortion providers for individual states.
CULTURAL EVOLUTION FTW!
the government forced the acceptance of blacks, didnt it?
Did it? Or was it merely sanctioning the inevitable? Are you aware of the hostilities created by many of the civil rights programs? Can you prove that the progress might have been faster and smoother if society had been left to evolve naturally? Co-relation is not causation.
Serr8d – I can’t wait!!
oh pardon me…..where did O say that homosexuality was a disease?
i missed it.
same with abortion.
let the states decide.
So overturn Roe v Wade? Obama isn’t for that.
umm..i must apolo for the drunk posting last night.
Not much difference, and I don’t have to wonder why. You must abort.
same with abortion.
let the states decide.
So you are opposed to Roe v Wade this morning?
O said wat i allus say, he’s against gay marriage for himself, PERSONALLY.
“against gay marriage? dont have one.â€Â
let the states decide
I know we are going in circles here, but ‘let the states decide’ is exactly what has happened in regards to gay marriage.
Nish, did you miss the 2004 election? There were several states deciding on the gay marriage thing.
serr8D i am a gay germ fan myself, cochran is a co-blogger at GNXP, and i loved zimmers book Parasite Rex… i think we will discover a lot more about parasite influence on evo-bio.
but chacun a son gout, agar plate is cool too.
Science can justify religious and conservative beliefs;
HAHAHAHAHA
/nishi rolls on floor laffin
good luck with that
see Discovery Institute
yup maybee, let the states decide.
economics will drive the cultural evolution and abortion and gay marriage will become SOP.
of course…..there will be a lot of pain during the transition process.
but ppls souls will be safe.
;)
B Moes i think the Civil War was kindof forceful.
I think we have discovered another bit of history of which you are rather clueless.
yup maybee, let the states decide.
Ok. You know that is exactly the case right now, right?
Let the states decide for abortion, too nish? Overturn Roe v Wade?
haha, and the supremes will get involved.
lets say ur state says no-samesex-marriage.
BUT ppl that go other states and get married and come back will have to have their marriages recognized by their home state.
game over.
wud u like to play again?
The case for gay marriage, I mean. The states are deciding.
BUT ppl that go other states and get married and come back will have to have their marriages recognized by their home state. game over.
wud u like to play again?
Nish, you are not right. That isn’t happening now.
ditto abortion.
ppl will go to other states and come back.
will u then imprison them for having an abortion?
a doctor cud have a practice over the state line..do u arrest him when he comes home from work?
there will be planned parenthood clinics in the next state.
doomed, as doomed as doom can be.
That isn’t happening now.
but it will. ;)
BUT ppl that go other states and get married and come back will have to have their marriages recognized by their home state.
game over.
wud u like to play again?
In which case you are not letting the states decide, are you? Pretty sad when you have to cheat at tic tac toe.
OMG
the Civil War WASNT about the emancipation of slaves?????
damned parochial school education!
No, it wasn’t.
That I even have to say that is a crying shame. I’d get my parents to ask for a refund, were I you.
Nuance: not just for breakfast, anymore.
im sayin thats ‘merica.
thats why GW wanted the constitution ammended. so that the non-gay-marriage states wudn’t be legally forced to recognize samesexmarriage.
and yes, as a constitutionalist i think roe v wade is not a good law.
but i also object to sneaky theocon strategies to over turn it illegally.
just be honest.
OMG
the Civil War WASNT about the emancipation of slaves?????
Nope. And it sure as hell wasn’t about forcing society to accept Blacks as equals.
That I even have to say that is a crying shame.
Especially in a thread where nishi has suddenly become a States Rights advocate. Almost ironic, even.
oh, now u dont want states rights anymore?
there will be planned parenthood clinics in the next state.
doomed, as doomed as doom can be.
I don’t know, nish. Abortion is perfectly legal now and abortion clinics aren’t exactly plentiful or economically properous.
ths is from 1991, but I don’t think things have changed much:
I just can’t agree with you that abortion will be such an economic boon to a neighboring state that currently anti-abortion states will find that an incentive to begin offering them.
oh, now u dont want states rights anymore?
All I really want right now nishi is for you to take some reading for comprehension courses, this is getting tiresome.
i think abortions are declining actually.
just like the birth rate.
but it will be localized, not national…abortion providers will spring up where there is a need, like contiguous to large population centers.
there may be luxury clinics where the affluent can fly.
a few horror stories will play out, those that. cant afford the legal option due to geography or poverty will try to selfabort with an overdose or coathanger.
tant pis for them
/shrug
i think samesex marriage might be a better economic revenue tho.
I think it’s just great that nishi finds a soft spot in her heart to ignore those statements by her savior, my life for yours, that are incredibly inconvenient for her strongly held beliefs. Flash blindness, it’s what’s for breakfast.
For the record, I’ll happily respond to points not raised by a typing telephone pole. Even if they’re the exact same points.
Possibly.
But how can you be pro-states rights and still imagine states would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states? Twenty six states right now have constitutions barring the recognition of same-sex marriage.
I’m not sure why marriage would be a bigger economic revenue than a legal union, though. I think we’re getting into marginal benefits there.
I’m not sure why marriage would be a bigger economic revenue than a legal union, though. I think we’re getting into marginal benefits there.
It will be a whole new frontier for divorce lawyers.
And, for nishi to say this :
Makes this all the more ironical and shit:
So, the game is ok, as long as it’s HER game.
To paraphrase from the Sarah Connor Chronicles:
That was effective, what she just did.
but my game is this game.
how is it possible that u dont see?
dietary rules, fgm, circumsion, rules for dress, rules for whole body depilation, rules for sex…..
those all had origins in the survival of the species.
now, we have birth control, we have “safe sex”, we have pasturization.
ur ethics are hangovers from an earlier time.
its all cultural lag.
So, evolution supports same-sex marriage? Right.
And, whatever a word-salad’s “culture” does is good and supports evolution’s advancement? Right.
word-salad, except for the word-salad itself, it is simply not possible to read the “mind” of a word-salad, as you well “know”.
Moreover, it appears, word-salad, that you are at best a throwback, or perhaps a kind of missing-link embodied, or even a parasite upon the niche we evil-culture producers have created for you, maybe only a short step away from the ennobled Homeless.
nope, ima griefer.
cultural evolution supports samesexmarriage.
erm…..u do know the 4 dimensions of evolution, peden?
genetic, epigentic, behavioral and symbolic.
word-salad: Biologic evolution is not supported by same-sex marriage because biologic evolution requires non-homosexual sex, you know, involving male and female gametes. Anyone can have heterosexual sex, but same-sex marriage does not support this.
It has not been proven that your form of cultural evolution will survive evolutionarily or will instead be consigned to being parasitic upon a niche which might well be eliminated.
but….
isnt it exciting?
isnt it wunnerful and epiphanitic and splendid that we can overcome the chains and limitations of biology?
that is all Sir Richard really wants, u know…for u to see the mechanism.
dietary rules, fgm, circumsion, rules for dress, rules for whole body depilation, rules for sex…..
those all had origins in the survival of the species.
Unless we are arguing about theocons, then they are stupid and arbitrary.
word-salad: now that I think more about it, you word-salad mind is beginning to look more and more like a teratoma, involving a scattered mixture of tissues coming to take upon the characteristics of a monster. You’re probably going to have to be pretty lucky for we hosts to not reject you.
Then we could also talk about mutants.
B Moe, those things are evo-hangovers.
like loving sugar and fat.
good for us in the EEA, bad for us now.
haha, u have already rejected me.
eventually they would probably fall into homosexual activities.
That’s… an interesting theory, but it presumes everyone is overwhelmingly and continually compelled by their hormones, which is simply false. Some men would, some wouldn’t. Most, I suspect.
“haha, u have already rejected me.”
But it was an evolutionary process, after all.
Indeed. Any organism will quickly learn to ignore any stimulus that is of no practical benefit to it.